Video of the day: Seven billion people

Fast food, "buy local", and insanity

Every once in a rare while, a student, like "M", walks over to my office, slowly sits on the chair and says something like "I am surprised you had that article for us to read."  The explanation they have is that their expectation and understanding that I walk around with a certain political ideology does not match the readings I have for the class.

I suppose it is because of two streaks in me--the "libertarian" within the left-of-center framework, and the preference for clarity and truth irrespective of ideology!  I think these are the same reasons why I have always been drawn to George Orwell, and in contemporary times, to Christopher Hitchens.  Orwell's sympathies for the left-of-center did not prevent him from writing the powerfully influential 1984 and Animal Farm, which were/are both highly critical of socialism and the Soviet Union, when it was not at all fashionable for intellectuals to be anti-socialism.  There was then only only one breed of intellectuals--leftists.  All others were deemed not only as not being intellectual, but as anti-intellectuals.  (Such a world still exists at my place of work which has quite a few self-professed socialist colleagues!)

I am sure that Orwell would not like to be associated with fans like me, though :)

One of the "contrarian" readings that throws off students is anything that critiques the fashionable "buy local" movement.  In the first place, it irritates me that they could not even employ proper grammar--it ought to be "buy locally" and not "buy local"--if the latter, then "local" is a product that we can purchase as much as we can say "buy tomatoes."  It ought to be "buy locally" because, well, brush up on the verb/adverb aspects of English grammar!

"Locavore" which gained enough popularity to even sneak into the dictionary, makes us focus on the geography--local--as opposed to the larger issues of health and well being.  Locavore does not make any economic sense:

Local food is generally more expensive than non-local food of the same quality. If that were not so, there would be no need to exhort people to "buy local." However, we are told that spending a dollar for a locally produced tomato keeps the dollar circulating locally, stimulating the local economy. But, if local and non-local foods are of the same quality, but local goods are more expensive, then buying local food is like burning dollar bills—dollar bills that could have been put to more productive use. The community does not benefit when we pay more for a local tomato instead of an identical non-local tomato because the savings realized from buying non-local tomatoes could have been used to purchase other things. 

 The "rootedness" of the locavore movement is remarkably stupid when you compare it against the history of humans on this planet:

Our agrarian ancestors may well have been more connected to the land, but they died younger, spent little time in education due to the need for human labour and rarely travelled far from their place of birth. They also made appallingly inefficient use of the land and natural resources.

But, how about locavores as an environmental movement?

After an extensive literature review, other researchers have concluded that "it is currently impossible to state categorically whether or not local food systems emit fewer [greenhouse gasses] than non-local food systems."8 Minimizing the use of natural resources entails producing food in the least-cost location, which will not typically be local.

And other effects of closing off:

The idea that localism will bring resilience is also seriously mistaken. An insular community which does not trade regionally or internationally is at risk from the most basic threats, such as crop failure due to local extremes of weather. The evidence for this is all too apparent in the developing world. In a global community, local crop failure is not a life-or-death issue since food can be temporarily imported in exchange for other goods or services. During times of plenty, excess food can be exported and the long-term surplus and deficit balanced out. The community is buffered against extremes of weather through international trade. While an isolated village has to depend on its own grain store to smooth out times of feast and famine, a trading nation has the entire world as its grain store.

I suppose locavores will be great fans of North Korea then :)

In urban planning, we often reminded ourselves that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  I am a fellow traveler when it comes to the feel good intentions of localism.  When I travel, I try--as much as possible--to eat local foods.  I do enjoy the fresh-off-the-garden tomato, whenever a neighbor gives me a few.  But, that is it.

How much such insanity exists is best illustrated in this following Daily Show clip.  While it is not about localism, it is about the idiocy that results from wanting to do the right thing but in the most illogical ways

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
San Francisco's Happy Meal Ban
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Reading the classics. Not this way!

Two commentaries on the issue here and here

Colbert explains (to Bill O'Reilly) who god is :)

I was laughing like crazy watching this ... one of the funniest ever.
Now, the earlier post on Bill O'Reilly's pontification has been taken care of :)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill O'Reilly Proves God's Existence - Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive

Don't go to graduate school!

In an earlier post, I noted that graduate schools are increasingly "graduate schemes" ... well, if only the non-professional graduate programs would take the lead from the American Bar Association, which has issued a caveat emptor; Megan McArdle writes:

When even the American Bar Association is telling people to think hard about applying to law school.

According to the association, over the past 25 years law school tuition has consistently risen two times faster than inflation. The average private law student borrows about $92,500 for law school, while law students who attend public schools take out loans for $71,400. These numbers do not include any debt law students may still have from their time as undergraduates.
Before the recession, the ABA cites statistics that show an average starting salary for an associate of a large law firm of about $160,000 a year. But by 2009, about 42 percent of graduates began with an annual salary of less than $65,000.
And those are just the newbies.
Flanagan & Einwohner partner Stewart Einwohner says he has been getting resumes for pro bono work from experienced lawyers.

And those are the people who finish law school.  When they're rationalizing the decision to assume tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt, people forget that a substantial number of students never do get through law school, or medical school, or business school.  Those people end up deeply in debt, and very possibly have lower earning power than they did when they left for school.

Bill O'Reilly explains religion and the tides :)

Try reading this (ht) without even cracking a smile :)

Bill O'Reilly waxes theological:

O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?

O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.

Glad we've settled that!

Would somebody email Mr. O'Reilly this link that explains the tides? :)

Visualizing the US debt in #100 bills :(

The graphic, from here, is a visualization of the US public debt in stacks of one hundred dollar bills (ht)
It needs updating with a few more stacks--data used is almost two years old, and in those months we have spent a whole lot of money that we don't have.

First, visualize $100 million as a stack of hundred dollar bills:

In the debt visualization below, the tiny speck in the bottom left is this guy--helps you scale things :)

India, Inc. and America's decline

The last couple of months have erased any doubt on how much India is open for business with the rest of the world—one after another, the leaders of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council came calling on India’s political and business establishments.

Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron’s visit was first.  Then came President Obama, whose visit was right after the “shellacking” that he and the Democratic Party suffered at the midterm elections.  The Americans had barely left the country when the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, arrived with a huge delegation that included seven of his ministers and more than sixty business leaders.  Finally, December ended with state visits by China’s Wen Jiabao and Russia’s President, Dmitry Medvedev. 

As one might imagine, the visits were to strengthen the economic ties, in contrast to the geopolitical calculations of the past decades in the Cold War’s shadow.  Prime Minister Wen made this clear when he publicly expressed his displeasure at the Indian media that constantly questioned him about the political differences between the two countries, when he was focused on the rapidly growing trade relationship.  By the way, yes, China runs a trade surplus with India, as it does with America too.

The impression is that the French were the big winners—the sum total of the Indo-French civil and military deals is estimated to be more than double the agreements that America negotiated with India. 

Russia and China have another mutual economic relationship with India, and Brazil—these countries are collectively referred to as BRIC, and their third summit meeting will be in China next year.  This could soon take on a plural form, BRICS, with the inclusion of South Africa, which has been invited as an observer to the forthcoming meeting.  As one reported phrased it, BRIC is “emerging as a symbol of gradual transfer of economic power from the West to emerging economies.”

As an American expatriate, I feel the urgency to stand up and paraphrase Mark Twain’s comment that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated.  But, there is no point in bemoaning the premature declarations of America’s and the West’s demise because of the enormous sense of economic confidence that is prevalent in India. 

The rhetorical “yes, we can” that has become a distant and faded memory in America is fully alive and well in a vibrant India.  An analysis in “Business India” noted that unlike the past when “Indians as a community were low on the confidence quotient” now things are different—“the overall growth in this decade has increased the confidence of all Indians.”

Such attitudes are reflected even at casual conversations when I am the American representative.  For instance, by chance I met a retired physician, who wasted no time to ask me “how come America is in so much trouble while India is flourishing?”  Her husband, who is now retired after a career as an executive with an Indian multinational company, commented that perhaps only university teaching and the medical professions were safe in America.   These were certainly not the kind of questions and comments I faced even until two years ago!

Economic collaborations are happening even in areas that I normally would not have expected.  The headline of a newspaper item was one such shocker—“China gives green light to first ‘Made in China’ Bollywood film.”  China’s official film production company is backing a $10 million movie that will be set in India and China, and will star a few of India’s leading actors too. 

While not intended as a statement on the current economic climate, the title of this Chinese-Indian Bollywood movie is absolutely appropriate—“Gold Struck.”  With a combined population of nearly two and a half billion people, “Chindia” has a large and growing movie market, and if “Gold Struck” succeeds and is followed by more, one can imagine the implications for one of America’s famous and valuable brands ever—Hollywood!  

It is depressing that we in the US seem to be oblivious to such rapidly transforming economic realities in other parts of the world.  And even more worrisome is the appearance that we are fixated on trivialities from “Jersey Shore” to the President’s birth certificate.  I suppose I have a tougher job ahead in my classes when I discuss global issues with students!

Now that I am getting back to my regular schedule of reading and writing, I find it interesting that there are two cover articles in two different publications, and both are about the American decline.

• At Foreign Policy, the article's headline is that this time the decline is for real, and
• Over at The New Republic, Paul Kennedy questions whether America is really in decline.

The two essays head in two different directions; check them out

How ponzi is your graduate program?

The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes.

Hmmm, it has taken the Economist this long to figure this out?  How long will it take the magazine newspaper to find out that it is not doctoral degrees but a great deal of higher education has turned into a ponzi scheme?

I ended up at that Economist piece thanks to this item in the Chronicle.

as college grads learn of the job/degree imbalance, they will try to get around the problem in some cases by inappropriately going to school even more, by getting a master’s or even doctoral degree, or perhaps become a member of the professions—becoming, say, a lawyer. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data suggest that the problem of underemployment or over-education (taking jobs requiring vastly less education than that acquired) extends very much to still higher levels of learning, to advanced degrees.

It is not graduate school anymore.  Welcome to "Graduate Scheme!"

In case you thought this was all smoke and mirrors, well, how about this one as an example of too many PhDs chasing fewer and fewer jobs, which is not at all unusual anymore?

The report, published in the group's Perspectives on History, a newsletter, in advance of its annual conference this week, said the number of jobs posted with the association fell by more than 29 percent—from 806 to 569—during the 2009-10 academic year. Since two years ago, when the association posted an all-time high of 1,059 job openings, the number of jobs advertised with it has dropped by more than 46 percent, to the lowest level in 25 years.

Imagine then the employment prospects for graduates of programs like this one!  As a colleague, who shall not be named, remarked out of frustration, the graduate program is not for students, but is for faculty to boast that they have graduate students.  How unfortunate for the students, and for taxpayers!

Doing the right thing

No, not the Spike Lee movie!
But, a TED talk:

In an intimate talk, Barry Schwartz dives into the question "How do we do the right thing?" With help from collaborator Kenneth Sharpe, he shares stories that illustrate the difference between following the rules and truly choosing wisely. 

Peepli Live, and suicides of farmers in India

On the flight back home, I got to watch Peepli Live, which I blogged about a couple of months ago.  I noted then, after watching the trailer and reading about it:

It so reminds me of a Tamil film from three decades ago, called "Thanneer Thanneer", which in English would translate to "Water, Water."  Adapted from a play, the movie was one sarcastic comedy on the plight of the poor, the bureaucracy, and the self-promoting and self-aggrandizing politicians.  It was brilliant.

Peepli is pretty much along the same lines of rural poverty, grossly-self interested politicians and bureaucrats, and competing cable news channels that are trying to one-up each other on sensational reporting.  It was well done.

I am not sure how many in India watched the movie though--after all, Indians are the ones who need to recognize, understand, and act on the situation presented there.

Indians need to engage in this because it is not merely a satirical movie, but a terribly tragic reality of farmers and their spouses committing suicides in order to escape the debts; Sainath had a poignant column in The Hindu:

A sharp increase in farm suicides in 2009 with at least 17,368 farmers killing themselves in the year of “rural resurgence.” That's over 7 per cent higher than in 2008 and the worst numbers since 2004. This brings the total farm suicides since 1997 to 216,500. While all suicides have multiple causes, their strong concentration within regions and among cash crop farmers is an alarming and dismal trend.

Insanely tragic this statistic is.

Here is the irony that Sainath points out--banks loan out money for wealthy rural folks to buy Mercedes Benz cars at 7 percent interest rate, while farmers will be lucky to get 9 percent loans for tractors:

It took roughly a decade and tens of thousands of suicides before Indian farmers got loans at 7 per cent interest — many, in theory only. Prior to 2005, those who got any bank loans at all shelled out between 9 and 12 per cent. Several were forced to take non-agricultural loans at even higher rates of interest. Buy a Mercedes, pay 7 per cent interest. Buy a tractor, pay 12 per cent. The hallowed micro-finance institutions (MFIs) do worse. There, it's smaller sums at interest rates of between 24 and 36 per cent or higher.

Now, how about the data on the suicides?

these numbers are gross underestimates to begin with. Several large groups of farmers are mostly excluded from local counts. Women, for instance. Social and other prejudice means that, most times, a woman farmer killing herself is counted as suicide — not as a farmer's suicide. Because the land is rarely in a woman's name.

Then there is the plain fraud that some governments resort to. Maharashtra being the classic example. The government here has lied so many times that it contradicts itself thrice within a week. In May this year, for instance, three ‘official' estimates of farm suicides in the worst-hit Vidarbha region varied by 5,500 per cent. The lowest count being just six in four months (See “How to be an eligible suicide,” The Hindu, May 13, 2010).

The NCRB figure for Maharashtra as a whole in 2009 is 2,872 farmers' suicides. So it remains the worst State for farm suicides for the tenth year running. The ‘decline' of 930 that this figure represents would be joyous if true. But no State has worked harder to falsify reality. For 13 years, the State has seen a nearly unrelenting rise. Suddenly, there's a drop of 436 and 930 in 2008 and 2009. How? For almost four years now, committees have functioned in Vidarbha's crisis districts to dismiss most suicides as ‘non-genuine.' What is truly frightening is the Maharashtra government's notion that fixing the numbers fixes the problem.

What does it all mean?

It means over a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1995. It means the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history has occurred in this country in the past 16 years. It means one-and-a-half million human beings, family members of those killing themselves, have been tormented by the tragedy. While millions more face the very problems that drove so many to suicide. It means farmers in thousands of villages have seen their neighbours take this incredibly sad way out. A way out that more and more will consider as despair grows and policies don't change. It means the heartlessness of the Indian elite is impossible to imagine, leave alone measure.

Tenure: end it, or mend it?

More often tenure provides a lifetime of job security not to professors whose work requires protection, but to a significant minority of "deadwood" — individuals who are unproductive, out of date, or poor in their research, teaching or institutional commitment. In this sense, tenure can not only lead to academic freedom and intellectual excellence, but can also provide license without accountability and shield low-quality academics.

Ahem, is Arthur Levine talking about me? :)

So, what does Levine propose?

Since mandatory retirement is not possible, the length of tenure could be limited to a significant but finite number of years. A term of 30 years, for example, would ensure essential academic freedom and at the same time allow for the turnover that universities require to remain intellectually strong.Beyond that initial term, faculty and universities can together negotiate shorter-term contracts, modified assignments, or retirement.

Even 30 years is a little too long.

Given the six-year probationary period for tenure and promotion, we could then add another six for the next promotion, and thrown in another six years for beyond that final promotion.  And round that total number to twenty.  I say that tenure ought to be limited to a 20-year term.  And then negotiated short-term contracts.

The faculty union at my university, in its infinite wisdom (if there exists any) has a salary matrix with 32 or 33 steps (if I recall correctly, and I can't be bothered to read that insane bargaining agreement yet again!)  Imagine trying to convince them about the merits of a 20-year term for tenure! 

Note to the amorous undergraduate female reading this

A new term begins. 

As always, female students will outnumber male students in classes, reminding me of a quiet revolution.  Or, simply, whatever!

Anyway, while thinking about classes and syllabi and assignments, there I was reading a blog post (ht) on where the author ends with this postscript of a Note to the amorous undergraduate female reading this:

When you scan the campus and realize what your choices are, I know it is tempting to open a vein and slide into a warm bath. But here’s the thing: you may be an average undergraduate female, but there are above-average undergraduate males out there who are nearly your equal. They are out there. It’s just that you outnumber them about 100 to 1. Still, that’s no reason to open a vein and slide into a warm bath.

2010: the year of the unemployed :(

I have blogged enough about unemployment and the jobless recovery.  I wish this topic would go away, as much as the two wars would end.  Nothing seems to change :(  As Slate notes:

by most yardsticks, 2010 was the worst year for jobs since the Great Depression. The year's average unemployment rate will clock in at about 9.7 percent—higher than last year's 9.3 percent and tied for the highest annual rate since the government started keeping official counts in 1948. For all of 2010, in any given month, about 15 million Americans—the population of New England—were looking for work. 

 Of course, there is more than those counted under the unemployment rate:

Underemployment—that's the "official unemployed," plus people in part-time or temporary positions looking for full-time work, plus people discouraged from the labor market and no longer looking—totaled as many as 25 million.

I wish them all a better year.

Excitement over Paul McCartney's death and funeral

While in India, I missed, among others, The Onion.  But, hey, am now scanning for the best of what I missed and watched this one about Paul McCartney's death and funeral. 
No, he ain't dead, yet :)

Excitement Growing Among Beatles Fans For Paul McCartney's Funeral

We are now incompetent even in printing money?

One of the conversation topics in India was about the state of the US economy.  A friend who is an investment partner with a couple of ventures commented that the only reason the US was still going on was because of the ability to print money that is used all over the world.
Now, upon returning to the US, I scanned a few news and blog items I had missed thanks to the trip, and came across this gem (ht) that shows that we now aren't even good at printing money :)  Hilarious!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bank Theory
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

I still place my bets on the US though.  The Euro area is in a worse crisis.  China's reality depends on the Communist Party, and who knows where that will be at the end of the decade.  India's growth rate is impressive, yes, but inflation is currently ahead of the growth rate.  To some extent, the inflation rate of food and shelter is making the poor and lower classes worse off by the day.  The stark contrast between the affluent middle and upper classes and the rest is horrendous.
If I were a young undergraduate student in India, there is a good chance I might have made the stupid decision to join the bomb-throwing Maoists.  While I don't support the violence and destruction carried out by the Maoists, the fundamental reasons why the Maoists are in it are real. Tragically real.

Photo of the day: Pondy Bazaar in Chennai

I suppose I am always a visitor in Madr.., er, Chennai.  Thus, a regular feature of the city that might be nothing to note about for the "locals" could easily be a fascinating item for this "non-native" ... In fact, increasingly, I recognize this issue of me looking like a native but thinking like a non-native.  A strange kind of double-life, eh!

One of those regular features of the city is Chennai's "T Nagar", which has become the retail commercial headquarters for the metropolis.  I heard more than one relative refer to this area as Chennai's downtown.  To walk around in the evening hours on any of those main roads is a an intense experience for the senses--eyes, ears, nose, touch, and taste if one indulges in any.  (Yes, walking on the roads because the sidewalks are full of vendors and the foot-traffic.)

The photo here is the series of stalls where they sell flower garlands.  An island of fantastic floral smells that suddenly masks all the pervasive odors.